Benchmark: new Function() vs native

Script Preparation code:

var func1 = new Function("d", "return Math.log(2, d)");


var func2 = (d) => Math.log(2, d);

Tests:

new Function
let x = func1(200);
native fn
let x = func2(200)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Function
native fn

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: creating a new function using the `new Function()` constructor and defining a native function using an arrow function syntax (`(d) => ...`). The test cases measure how many executions per second each approach can perform on a simple mathematical operation involving logarithms.

**What's being tested**

The benchmark tests the performance of two different ways to create a function:

1. **`new Function()`**: This approach creates a new function using the `Function` constructor. The syntax is: `var func = new Function('param1', 'return expression')`.
2. **Native function definition**: This approach defines a native function using an arrow function syntax (`(param) => expression`). In this case, the test uses the simple `(d) => Math.log(2, d)` syntax.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* `new Function()` (Option 1): Creates a new function dynamically at runtime.
* Native function definition using arrow functions (Option 2): Defines a native function that can be executed directly without the need for dynamic creation.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`new Function()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more flexibility in defining custom functions with varying parameters.
		+ Can be useful when working with legacy code or dynamic data.
	* Cons:
		+ Performance overhead due to dynamic function creation at runtime.
		+ May incur additional memory allocations and garbage collection.
2. **Native function definition using arrow functions**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution performance since native functions are compiled by the JavaScript engine ahead of time.
		+ Memory-efficient, as there's no additional allocation for a new function object.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than `new Function()`, as you're limited to defining functions with specific parameter names.

**Library and special JS feature**

There is no library or special JS feature being used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript features, such as the `Function` constructor and arrow function syntax.

**Alternative approaches**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for creating functions in JavaScript:

1. **Closure**: You can define a closure by returning an expression from a higher-scoped function that captures variables from its surrounding scope.
2. **Constructor functions**: Instead of using the `new Function()` constructor, you can use a constructor function (e.g., `class Func { ... }`) to create new functions dynamically.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics compared to native function definition using arrow functions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Function	16058712.0 Ops/sec
native fn	6628096.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new Function() vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Function vs native fn

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Function

native fn

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):